Will there be a 2022 season?

[Old Red]

You do seem to be spending more time targeting the players.

 

I have no sympathy for either side, but comparing the MLB players’ jobs to that of Joe Lunch Pail is never going to lead to resolution, and probably not even to relevant commentary…

 

I have said repeatedly that I don’t have sympathy for either side, and I spend more time targeting the players, because most on here seem to be on their side, which they are pampered, and hero worshipped enough.

[moonslav59]

There is nothing wrong with players trying to get as much money as they can just like anyone else, and I never said there was, but if they don’t like what they get then you either play, or don’t. I think the players need the owners more than the other way around. The owners already have businesses.

 

That's one way of looking at it..

 

How long would MLB as a business lasted had they continued with scab players year after year?

[moonslav59]

You have to admit , it is kind of comical to use sums like 500,000 dollars and " minimum wage " in the same sentence.

 

Not to me. It's not even comical to suggest a min salary of $1M for a 162 game season + ST'ing.

[Old Red]

That's one way of looking at it..

 

How long would MLB as a business lasted had they continued with scab players year after year?

 

I don’t think there would have been an MLB as a business without the regular players just like there wouldn’t be an MLB as a business without the owners. That’s the way I look at it. Just a point of view that I don’t say is right, or wrong.

[Old Red]

Not to me. It's not even comical to suggest a min salary of $1M for a 162 game season + ST'ing.

 

If there is not a max salary then why does there have to be a min salary of say $1M? Just asking for a different point of view?

[Bellhorn04]

If there is not a max salary then why does there have to be a min salary of say $1M? Just asking for a different point of view?

 

You have to have a minimum salary for MLB players for their first 3 years because it's a fixed wage. They can't offer their services to any other teams, they have no control over any of it.

 

It's just the way the system is set up.

[moonslav59]

I don’t think there would have been an MLB as a business without the regular players just like there wouldn’t be an MLB as a business without the owners. That’s the way I look at it. Just a point of view that I don’t say is right, or wrong.

 

Yes, one way of looking at it.

[moonslav59]

If there is not a max salary then why does there have to be a min salary of say $1M? Just asking for a different point of view?

 

Well, just about every country or company has a minimum salary.

 

To me, those who worked their way all the way up to the majors and play a full season, deserve a bigger piece of the mega pie that $550K.

 

Even $1M seems low in this context. I said just $1M, because I think that's the highest the owners might accept. Just my opinion.

 

My general point has been that even the players should look at giving up something at the top to greatly enhance the lower and mid-range players, who happen to make up the vast majority of MLB players.

 

MLB is not like a normal union shop where seniority a pay are based on years of service and job assignments. I was in a union, once, that was facing a tough negotiation. The company had grown by so much, they were hemorrhaging profits. Ownership sought to divide and conquer. They knew the majority of workers had less than 3 years of seniority, and the previous contract had 7 step raises based on 7 years of service, so they offered a bone to just the newbies and just a minor raise to the 7 year+ workers. They offered a 3 year step raise to top pay, thereby giving the newer workers what amounted to 7 raises in 3 years.

 

I had been with the company for 3 years, so I saw the biggest raise possible- nearly a 60% raise in one year! I voted no, because I planned on retiring with this company and felt like raising the top pay was most important.

 

MLB is not like this. Hardly anyone reaches "top pay," and they don't work until they are 65 years old. That's why I am thinking the lower guys need the attention.

 

I realize it is my point of view, and others have very different views, too.

[Old Red]

Well, just about every country or company has a minimum salary.

 

To me, those who worked their way all the way up to the majors and play a full season, deserve a bigger piece of the mega pie that $550K.

 

Even $1M seems low in this context. I said just $1M, because I think that's the highest the owners might accept. Just my opinion.

 

My general point has been that even the players should look at giving up something at the top to greatly enhance the lower and mid-range players, who happen to make up the vast majority of MLB players.

 

MLB is not like a normal union shop where seniority a pay are based on years of service and job assignments. I was in a union, once, that was facing a tough negotiation. The company had grown by so much, they were hemorrhaging profits. Ownership sought to divide and conquer. They knew the majority of workers had less than 3 years of seniority, and the previous contract had 7 step raises based on 7 years of service, so they offered a bone to just the newbies and just a minor raise to the 7 year+ workers. They offered a 3 year step raise to top pay, thereby giving the newer workers what amounted to 7 raises in 3 years.

 

I had been with the company for 3 years, so I saw the biggest raise possible- nearly a 60% raise in one year! I voted no, because I planned on retiring with this company and felt like raising the top pay was most important.

 

MLB is not like this. Hardly anyone reaches "top pay," and they don't work until they are 65 years old. That's why I am thinking the lower guys need the attention.

 

I realize it is my point of view, and others have very different views, too.

 

I would agree with bringing up the bottom of the salary scale, and taking some off the top, but you know that those at the top would never go for that.

[moonslav59]

I would agree with bringing up the bottom of the salary scale, and taking some off the top, but you know that those at the top would never go for that.

 

They don't have to. They are a tiny minority of the player vote.

[jad]

I would agree with bringing up the bottom of the salary scale, and taking some off the top, but you know that those at the top would never go for that.

 

But 'taking some off the top' surely means a salary cap, does it not? MLBPA is pretty clear they won't go for this.

[moonslav59]

But 'taking some off the top' surely means a salary cap, does it not? MLBPA is pretty clear they won't go for this.

 

It does not have to mean a cap. It can mean a bigger Lux tax or a limit on just the highest salaries.

 

Plus, I'm not so sure the MLPA would be against a cap, if big giveaways to lower and middle ranked players were part of the structure.

[notin]

It does not have to mean a cap. It can mean a bigger Lux tax or a limit on just the highest salaries.

 

Plus, I'm not so sure the MLPA would be against a cap, if big giveaways to lower and middle ranked players were part of the structure.

 

Wasn’t that already shot down?

[Bellhorn04]

The bottom line is, the players have asked for a $245 million first tax threshold and a $775,000 minimum salary, and they will have to settle for less if a deal is going to get done.

[S5Dewey]

The bottom line is, the players have asked for a $245 million first tax threshold and a $775,000 minimum salary, and they will have to settle for less if a deal is going to get done.

 

....unless the players hold firm on those two demands and go on strike over them.

 

When I was working we once went into negotiations with a couple of positions that we felt were non-negotiable and we were willing to strike over. We in fact did strike for slightly over a month and we did get what we wanted, but to be fair to this discussion they weren't monetary items; they had more to do with working hours and conditions.

 

My point is that employees do strike and once that happens it becomes a game of 'chicken', seeing who is willing to hold out the longest and how committed they are to their demands. In actuality, the current lockout is the same. The fallout MLB is dealing with now is that since the owners initiated the stoppage they're getting the majority of the blame for it and it's hurting their image (and the image of the game).

Edited February 22, 2022 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

....unless the players hold firm on those two demands and go on strike over them.

 

When I was working we once went into negotiations with a couple of positions that we felt were non-negotiable and we were willing to strike over. We in fact did strike for slightly over a month and we did get what we wanted, but to be fair to this discussion they weren't monetary items; they had more to do with working hours and conditions.

 

My point is that employees do strike and once that happens it becomes a game of 'chicken', seeing who is willing to hold out the longest and how committed they are to their demands. In actuality, the current lockout is the same. The fallout MLB is dealing with now is that since the owners initiated the stoppage they're getting the majority of the blame for it and it's hurting their image (and the image of the game).

 

We seem to be hearing some more hopeful signs on the negotiations now, at least.

[oldtimer]

We seem to be hearing some more hopeful signs on the negotiations now, at least.

 

There have been slight adjustments in the positions of both sides, which shows that some negotiations are still going on with further adjustments possible. If it comes down to a strike and longish delay on settlement, I believe the owners are in the stronger position.

[moonslav59]

Wasn’t that already shot down?

 

Things are shot down and revisited, at times, but I'm just expressing what I think could be done, and that would get 51%+ player support.

[mvp 78]

There have been slight adjustments in the positions of both sides, which shows that some negotiations are still going on with further adjustments possible. If it comes down to a strike and longish delay on settlement, I believe the owners are in the stronger position.

 

What strike? It's a lockout.

[moonslav59]

The bottom line is, the players have asked for a $245 million first tax threshold and a $775,000 minimum salary, and they will have to settle for less if a deal is going to get done.

 

Would a $230 Lux tax and $790K min salary be a step in the right directions? (From the owner's perspective?)

[mvp 78]

....unless the players hold firm on those two demands and go on strike over them.

 

When I was working we once went into negotiations with a couple of positions that we felt were non-negotiable and we were willing to strike over. We in fact did strike for slightly over a month and we did get what we wanted, but to be fair to this discussion they weren't monetary items; they had more to do with working hours and conditions.

 

My point is that employees do strike and once that happens it becomes a game of 'chicken', seeing who is willing to hold out the longest and how committed they are to their demands. In actuality, the current lockout is the same. The fallout MLB is dealing with now is that since the owners initiated the stoppage they're getting the majority of the blame for it and it's hurting their image (and the image of the game).

 

There's a lockout, not a strike?

 

The owners would have to say "let's play this season on the previous CBA" but that have stated that they will not do that. There assumption is that having a lockout now, avoids a midseason strike if no deal is made.

[mvp 78]

The bottom line is, the players have asked for a $245 million first tax threshold and a $775,000 minimum salary, and they will have to settle for less if a deal is going to get done.

 

Yeah, that's how negotiations work.

[mvp 78]

They don't have to. They are a tiny minority of the player vote.

 

But one of the leading voices that sits at the table is Max Scherzererear.

[moonslav59]

What strike? It's a lockout.

 

Exactly. This is on the owners.

 

I don't see them being in a stronger position. They are not weak, but they will be giving some big things to the players, this go-around.

[mvp 78]

You have to have a minimum salary for MLB players for their first 3 years because it's a fixed wage. They can't offer their services to any other teams, they have no control over any of it.

 

It's just the way the system is set up.

 

And the owners don't seem willing to give it up.

[Bellhorn04]

Would a $230 Lux tax and $790K min salary be a step in the right directions? (From the owner's perspective?)

 

I'm guessing they settle at around $220-230 for the tax thresholds and $700-725 K for the min salaries.

[moonslav59]

I'm guessing they settle at around $220-230 for the tax thresholds and $700-725 K for the min salaries.

 

I could see this...

 

Lux Tax limits:

 

$215 in 2022

$222 in 2023

$230 in 2024

 

Min salary:

 

$675 in 2022

$725 in 2023

$775 in 2024

 

Universal DH

 

Robo Umps in 2023

 

Expanded Playoffs (2023?)

 

No changes in arb system or years to free agency.

Edited February 22, 2022 by moonslav59

[notin]

The really dumb part of all this is almost immediately after spending weeks trying to limit spending and controlling player salaries and team payroll, and both sides finally agree, some team owner is going to approve a 10 year $350mill deal for Carlos Correa…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The really dumb part of all this is almost immediately after spending weeks trying to limit spending and controlling player salaries and team payroll, and both sides finally agree, some team owner is going to approve a 10 year $350mill deal for Carlos Correa…

 

Maybe... depending on the penalties owners agree to give themselves that players approve of. In lieu of collusion charges, would wealthy clubs rather split up the $360 on locking up say, their top five or six youngsters or prospects longterm? Wouldn't that be a kick to the veterans? "Look guys, we're still spending!"

 

Sure, Betts and Soto chose to bet on themselves, but there are plenty of Acunas, Bregmans and Francos who would take the money now...

[Nick]

The union and owners remain distant on several important issues, including a pre-arbitration bonus pool. The owners increased their offer on a bonus pool from $15 million to $20 million for 30 pre-arbitration players, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich reported. But the players want a $115 million pool for 150 players, according to Drellich.

 

Not sure why it's a big deal for the owners.....$4M per team?